Re: Bug#164889: md5sum <FILE produces spurious ` -' in output
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 03:49:29PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Raul> y=`md5sum < blah*.deb | awk '{print $1}'`
>
> Fails for md5sum /some/file >> hash-file-to-be-parsed-later
I'm not following you. If you're not using md5sum on stdin,
and you don't pipe through awk at all, what's the problem?
> Raul> Since making this kind of change doesn't break use of the
> Raul> existing md5sum, I think we should recommend that all apps
> Raul> using md5sum test using the gnu variant and be modified so they
> Raul> work with either version. In particular, we should allow bugs
> Raul> to be filed against packages which don't support the gnu
> Raul> version.
>
> wishlist bugs?
Initially. Priority should eventually be bumped up if the issue isn't
addressed and the new interface is still important.
> Raul> Until all those bugs have been closed -- and until every package with
> Raul> a md5sum dependency has had a chance to be tested -- we should forbid
> Raul> deployment of the gnu version.
>
> How do we keep track of these bugs?
Hmm... I guess we don't have a tool that says "given these bug
numbers, give me the status of each". If we had such a tool
(seems easy enough to write), package maintainer for the
package with changing interface could run [maybe it once a week]
to track progress.
> This requires way more thought than this. Proper dependency
> handling isa complicated; and a generic, scalable solution takes eons
> to hammer out.
Ok.
> Ideally, the packages should provide a virtual package with an
> interface version embedded in them (md-interface-1.1), and packages
> depend on that interface; but even that fails to scale for packages
> that may provide multiple interfaces, only some of which are
> changing.
This also fails for packages which depend on something which hasn't been
virtualized yet.
More generally, unless we expose linking information at the package level
there will never be a completely automated handling of this kind of thing.
[That's what we expect package maintainers to sort out.]
Thanks,
--
Raul
Reply to: